CASES

1. In the district and sessions court

Pp\laintiff: Shri Samyukta Kumar

Defendnt: Shri Manu Santhosh

Brief facts of the case :

 The plaintiff’ s husband, Gopinath Kumar was said to have purchased the suit property from
one Ashwini , under a registered sale deed for a sum of Rs.30,000. After his purchase, he was
claimed to have demolished the building that was on the south side and built superstructure
at a cost of Rs.50,000 . The suit property was said to have originally belonged to one Appu
Krishna, the grandfather of venugopal. Ashwini was the wife of Appu Krishna. In a suit filed
by Venugopal, a compromise decree was said to have been passed as entered into between
the said Venugopal and Ashwini, as per which Ashwini should enjoy the property till her life
time without any power of alienation and after Venugopal should take it absolutely. The
compromise decree in the said suit dated has been marked as Ex.B-2 in the present
proceeding. The defendant/ appellant has purchased the entire 3 cents of property covered
under the compromise decree from Venugopal Padayachi . The said sale deed has been
marked as Ex.B-1. After the death of Ashwini, the defendant/ appellant for declaration of his
title and also for recovery of possession of the land contending that since late Ashwini had
only a life interest, the defendant is entitled to the property in question. The said suit though
hotly contested by the plaintiff was decreed in favour of the defendant herein on.

The defendant herein opposed the claim on the ground that the present suit is barred by res
judicata on account of the earlier proceedings referred to supra and that the plaintiff and her
children were already parties from the stage of the first appeal in the earlier round of
proceedings and therefore the suit claim is devoid of merits.

2. IN THE HIGH COURT, KERALA

Petitioner: Parul Sahu

Defendant: M&T Corporation
Brief facts of the case:
The revision petitioner/defendant has filed this present civil revision petition as against
the order dated passed by the learned District Munsif, in dismissing the application filed
under Section 5 of the Limitation Act by him praying to condone the delay of 324 days in
filing an application to set aside the exparte decree .

2. The trial Court, while passing orders has among other things observed that 'the conduct
of the petitioner lacks bonafide and the petitioner has acted in a lethargic and negligent
manner for which the respondent could not be made to suffer and resultantly dismissed
the application without costs'.

3. According to the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner , the impugned order of the
trial Court in in dismissing the application to condone the delay of 324 days is against the
weight of the facts and settled law and as a matter of fact, the trial Court ought to have
appreciated the fact that the petitioner has not been informed by its counsel, the details of
the Court proceedings on a day to day basis and the petitioner along with the application
to condone the delay to set aside the exparte decree has filed a detailed written statement
and this shows that the petitioner has filed the application with all bonafides but
unfortunately this aspect of the matter has not been appreciated by the trial Court in a
proper and real perspective and indeed the petitioner has an excellent case on merit and
the current lease deed is upto the year 2019 beginning from 1.1.2018 and the petitioner
being a public sector undertaking should not be penalised and make to suffer the loss of
substantial justice due to no fault of it and in any event, the trial Court should have
applied its judicial mind in allowing the application of condonation of delay and since the
order of the trial Court suffers from serious material irregularity and patent illegality and
the same needs to be set aside by this court sitting in revision and therefore prays for
allowing the revision petition in furtherance substantial cause of justice .

4. The learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff submits that the petitioner/defendant
has not filed the written statement and finally he has been called absent and set exparte
and the suit has been posted t for exparte evidence and, the suit has been decreed and the
respondent/decree holder preferred execution petition in which notice has been served on
the petitioner/defendant and from Exs R1 to R3, it is quite evident that the
respondent/plaintiff has made all genuine efforts to bring it to the notice of the
petitioner/defendant about the exparte decree even before filing of the execution petition
and the petitioner/defendant even after coming to know about the exparte decree has
come forward to project I.A.No.785 only on 25.8.2018 which clearly exhibits the callous
attitude of the petitioner/defendant and since the delay that has occurred is not due to
bonafide reason, the same cannot be condoned in the eye of law and in fact the trial Court
has rightly observed that the petitioner/defendant has acted in a lethargic and negligent
manner for which the respondent could not be made to suffer and therefore prays for
dismissal of the civil revision petition.

3. CRIMINAL APPEAL

IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE, DELHI

Criminal Appesl No._____________
ABC (Petitioner)
Vs.
State And Another (Respondents)
That the respondent herein preferred three complaints under section 142/138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 alleging that the appellant in the month of March 2019
asked for a friendlu loan of Rs. 50.000/- through a common friend.

That the Respondent No. 2 herein has stated to advance the loan of Rs 50,000/- and
further stated that the appellant had promised to return said loan in 9
installments and issued nine cheques amounting to Rs. 1,70,000/- the
three cheques in each complaint case. However, in the course of
examination respondent No 2 when, where, how much the loan was
advanced did not find mention either in the complaint, evidence or
submission made by the Respondent No. 2 herein.

That after hearing both the parties the Trial Court convicted the appellant
and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to
pay a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- as compensation for all the nine cheques
involved in all the three complaints dated 13-8-2019. Aggrieved by the said
order and judgment the appellant assails and is moving present appeal
before this Hon’ble Court.

GROUNDS FOR THE APPEAL:

1. That the impugned order, which is based on mere deductions and
conjectures and totally against the matrix of facts and law, hence the
judgment as well as sentence is void, illegal and liable to be reversed,
set aside and retracted.
2. That respondent No 2 herein has further failed to prove that how
much of the alleged loan was advanced and placed any documents,
receipts or any accounts to the affect that the respondent No 2 herein
had advanced any loan to the appellant as alleged in his complaint,
hence judgment is bad in the eyes of law and liable to be reversed,
quashed and set aside.

PRAYER:
1. It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may
graciously be pleased to call for the trial court records, set aside
impugned judgment passed by Trial Court, accept present appeal and
acquit the appellant in the interest of justice.

2. It is further prayed to pass any other direction as this Hon’ble Court

may deem fit and proper in the light of the facts and circumstances
explained hereinabove, in favour of the appellant and against the
respondents, to meet the ends of justice, fairness and equity.